Post navigation

SDSU Student Association President to oppose second Free Speech Measure, (SB198) but didn’t bother to ask students

I’m getting reports early this AM that South Dakota State Student President Taylin Albrecht decided by herself without consulting the Student’s Association to take a stand against the second free speech bill (this one originating in the State Senate) on behalf of SDSU.

Two Student Senators expressed to me their concern noting:

“Our president said that she is a representative of the students’ voice, and therefore, does not need the consent of the (senate) body to act. We have been discussing the issue amongst our senate members who are present in Pierre. Many of us were blindsided by her actions and the stance taken by the Student Federation.

We admire the universities that chose to abstain from the votes tonight in an effort to remain transparent and honest for their students.”

When folks try to avoid a policy debate — shouting “nothing to see here!” & claiming the legislation is ‘unnecessary’ or ‘redundant’ — it becomes crystal clear they feel the proposal isn’t redundant. Otherwise, an intelligent person would shrug, let it pass, and then ignore it, keeping her powder dry for more important fights. Why waste time, energy, money, headaches, and gasoline opposing a pointless law?

Answer: Because, for good or ill, the ardent antagonists believe it WILL have an effect, one they perceive as negative. Actions speak louder than words. Why is this proposal important enough to attack?

Perhaps this bill should be rejected. Tell us why. If you anticipate dire consequences, explain the dangers you foresee and use logic to convince SD citizens it’s bad legislation. Wrong or right, that’s democracy. When folks scramble to circumvent honest debate, fighting hard to change the subject, we sense they’re hiding the football.

Not really sure what to make of this, but I might just rationalize this and use some common sense to provide some clarity for myself and maybe other…it seems, I believe, what happened here was not an attempt to undermine any students’ opinions, thoughts or views. The student representative, Ms. Albrecht, made a decision as an executive leader (highest ranking student representative at SDSU that isn’t administration….a position that students voted her into) on behalf of the entire student body, not just the opinions of senators who represent the SDSU Students’ Association (even though that does still matter). Her decision in this Federation does give her voting power unlike the supervisory and mediator role seen in SDSU Senate meetings. To note vote would essentially equate to her not doing her job. Here’s a thought….You could argue that since the SDSU Senate decided to vote against this bill (and also lobbied against it with other S.D. Universities) that she was remaining consistent by drawing back to what the Student Governement at SDSU decided weeks prior (to not support the bill, a majority decision) while also factoring in outside student influences since the opinions of 30 some senators (some potentially with crooked and hidden agendas) aren’t the only factors playing into the ultimate decision made. Moreover, It is becoming increasingly apparent that the efforts and leadership of a student executive are being attacked, not for misconduct or irresolute/mediocre leadership, but rather for the insecurity of a minority of defectors trying to instigate conflict within an organization and defame or diminish a person’s character and leadership potential. Some level to stoop to just to try and have your voice heard…but then again, what do I know.

I’m with you. I just want to hear a straight up discussion of the pros and cons.

I still have concerns based on my reading of the bill. Not the concept. I fear its language is so back and white, administration restrictrictions on “speech activity” which would impede the primary purpose of the system (going to class, taking tests) can be too easily challenged (with damages) and ultimately cost the university (passed on to either students or taxpayers). Consider it my visceral reaction to something which makes suing easier as quickly becoming a lawyer income stream.

But, the Regents seem to trying to put up so much smoke, issues like mine above aren’t even discussed and potentially alleviated with minor word change.

at UMass back around 1970, Hubert Humphrey got shouted down and shut down by a bunch of obnoxious liberal students led by an asshat psych professor who didnt want to hear what he had to say and didn’t think anybody else should be able to, either.

initially a lot of useful idiots tried defending this behavior but i silenced one group of them, (literally) by pointing out that I was there, and didnt I have a right to hear what he had to say? They had no answer for that.
My roommate was taking one of the professor’s courses and said the next day consisted of everybody in the class telling him what an asshat he was. Reasonable people had no problem punching back in those days.

The Left’s hysteria over this bill has an obvious basis, which is that the Left’s monopoly on speech on the university campuses is threatened by the bill. I refer back to the SDSU student’s statement before the House Judiciary Committee, which was that the bill will make it more difficult to prevent speech that they [the Left] find offensive. That remains all that any freedom-minded person should need to support the bill.